-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Evolution vs Creationism
- Thread starter Coburgtiger
- Start date
rosy23 said:
Sorry to jump in here Rosy but in my view it would be a relatively short but accurate introduction to the topic. You may also want to compare and contrast with a creationist or Lamarckian view at different points in the course. Interestingly Lamarkism is making a bit of a comeback in the form of epigenetics.
rosy23 said:
Students first do Evolution in Yr 10. To me any science subject that is taught need to have a context and beginning. When you teach Chemistry you teach what the pre-scientists like the ancient Greek and Alchemists believed.
Djevv said:
I know, the advent of epigenetics is super exciting, larmarckian theory aside. I mean, in essence it is Lamarckian, in that environment directly influences a heritable trait, but what's even more exciting for biology as a whole is that it can exist alongside Darwinian evolution, and, in fact, does.
Djevv said:
Well, in terms of your RBCs in dinosaur bones, I'm not sure how you could come to the conclusion that creationism explains that better than evolution? Creationism doesn't really explain anything, just saying, "someone made it that way because", isn't really an explanation. However, saying, "it became prevalent due to being the most effective method out of many randomly generated methods" is an explanation. Especially when science can easily explain how those phenotypes are randomly generated, and inherited.
Intelligent design as a null hypothesis is an interesting idea. I think you are probably right, ID does tend to arise as the most popular opinion on species diversities amongst various cultures, before those opinions are tested. I believe it's an evolutionary left over from the need for intelligent animals to assume a creator for a cause. In essence, our evolutionary precursor needs to assume that if there's a rustling behind a bush, there's an animal creating that noise, so we can either hunt it or avoid it. Evolution has led to our propensity to see an effect, and assume a creator causing it.
So I guess that ID would be the null hypothesis. But null hypotheses are not explanations or theories. A lot of experiments have absurd null hypotheses for the purpose of making the hypothesis it's polar opposite.
I think this is your point, that we cannot assess the validity of evolution without an understanding of the opposing belief. But making a student aware of Intelligent Design is different to teaching Creationism as a scientific theory. The essence of this thread is based on some beliefs that both 'theories' should be put forth as alternate possibilities, when, as a biologist, you need to refer to evolution as frequently as a physicist needs to refer to gravity.
I mean, the null hypothesis for the existence of gravity would be that nothing is inherently attracted to anything else (indeed this was once a prevailing opinion) but physicists will not teach that idea in school. Indeed, It would undo a lot of the hard work involved in getting around what are already ingrained student misconceptions.
rosy23 said:
AT the moment in the AusVELS Rosy, evolution isn't taught until year ten, and even then it is only given a term alongside all other aspects of genetics. It is not taught in detail again until year twelve, and even then only briefly as an introduction to genetics. My point would be that evolution needs to be underlying all aspects of the biology course as the 'unifying force' of biology. In order to accurately understand any one fragment of biology, you need to understand how evolution works.
Djevv said:
I have no problem teaching a bit of history in this context (and I do). To say that it is scientific and should be taught in a science classroom as a 'competing theory' is what I balk at. I am not stating that was your idea, but it was the topic of this reincarnated discussion.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Agree PT, and there have been recent rumblings (mostly out of the US) to go back towards teaching it as a 'competing theory'.
Coburgtiger said:
In terms of tissue surviving millions of years.
Modern creationism has a lot of evolutionary ideas in it. In terms of why is the feature there, ID would encourage us to look more closely at how it works rather than why it came to be.
My point was that we observe intelligent agents (us) fabricating complex items and look at a complex item of non-human origin and say maybe the same sort of process was involved.
A hypothesis is a possible explanation as far as I understand the word. I like the idea of alternate possibilities to try to teach a student about how science works and has worked and how to think scientifically. I don't know to what extent you could do creationism, the curriculum is crowded as it is, the only place I could think to put it is as an introduction. But I do think it belongs in science, not religion, but as a failed theory. Modern efforts to revive it, in terms of ID, have not really convinced enough people to be taken seriously. Mind you if Lamarkism can make a comeback so can creationism.
Should it be taught as a full blown theory? No.
I agree with you in part Djevv, it is important for students to be given the opportunity to think critically, and scientifically.
But there is an issue with this:
Political correctness would not allow us to teach creationism as a failed theory. We can't introduce religious belief and then teach that they are wrong.
If we are going to introduce creationism, it has to be without judgement of it's failures.
I think there's a grey area surrounding whether you could introduce both, and then ask the students to apply scientific principles to work out which one they think is the most scientific. This is very delicate, and it also makes it more difficult to further teach biology in an evolutionary context without students saying "But what about creationism? We also had that as an option."
With out being able to actively disprove the scientific merits of creationism, it is very difficult to introduce at all.
But there is an issue with this:
Djevv said:
Political correctness would not allow us to teach creationism as a failed theory. We can't introduce religious belief and then teach that they are wrong.
If we are going to introduce creationism, it has to be without judgement of it's failures.
I think there's a grey area surrounding whether you could introduce both, and then ask the students to apply scientific principles to work out which one they think is the most scientific. This is very delicate, and it also makes it more difficult to further teach biology in an evolutionary context without students saying "But what about creationism? We also had that as an option."
With out being able to actively disprove the scientific merits of creationism, it is very difficult to introduce at all.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Yes. Personally I still think the whole thing is fascinating and interesting. I still like to read up on anything to do with the issue. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the ENCODE findings that most DNA is not junk but 'meta' DNA that controls gene expression and the like?
to Coburg Tiger
I am a working Science/Maths teacher (not senior Biology though) but I'm a Christian so I am more friendly toward creationist ideas than most people. I'm quite willing to chat about my opinions if you are interested, but I'm not particularly interested in a knock down drag out flame war. Good luck with your Masters!
Djevv said:
The ENCODE findings were interesting but highlight more about the nature of transcription (that is what they were looking at after all) than about some new function of 'junk' DNA. I think you should read up on miRNA and its role in gene regulation.
What we do know is that large amounts of many eukaryotic organism's DNA is essentially non-functional. We know how it was propogated and we know how it is now silenced. The fact that some small percentage of that DNA has been co-opted into novel function is more about how evolution works, than about some NEW function of DNA. We also know that deleting large amounts of this DNA from a mouse genome has no obvious phenotypic effects. The so-called 'onion test' is also an interesting thing to think about in these discussions.
Now....back on topic!
Coburgtiger said:
Hard to introduce it to the science curriculum if it can't be critically analyzed I agree. Also there are lots of different types of creationism: young earth is the best known, but old earth creationism and Theistic Evolution and ID are also creationism.
If I was going to present it favorably I would focus on some of the things it has correctly predicted:
The general stasis of organisms in the fossil record and the lack of transitional forms which can be actually observed, as opposed to inferred
That many rocks can be explained by a catastrophic origin eg Mt St Helens sediments
The Cambrian explosion
The discovery of functional 'junk DNA'
Dinosaur tissue inside fossils
The complexity of molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum and the idea of specified and irreducible complexity
That experiments which attempt to induce evolutionary change have had only very minor successes.
Observations of natural selection in action in the wild are unspectacular.
The issue of how mutation and natural selection actually designed say something like a wing is very hard to envisage. No known natural process produces designs in any other area of science.
Lack of any reasonable theory on the origin of life, which is often taught alongside evolution.
Hugely controversial list I know, but if you want to know why a percentage of the population is skeptical about evolution the answer will be somewhere in this list.
I also think 'science' needs to realize that evolution does make 'religious' statements about origins(I count metaphysical naturalism as religion) perhaps it needs to explicitly distance it's self from religion, but I don't know how.
Djevv said:
I appreciate your opinions Djevv, and as I have said, I agree with large parts of what you have said.
I don't want to get into the aforementioned war either, I asked for a variety of opinions, and I thank you for your informed ones.
Djevv said:
However, I disagree with some of what has been said above. None of what has been mentioned above is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. The idea of 'irreducible complexity' has been debated and widely debunked, and I don't feel that I need to. Things like the eye and the wing are not irreducibly complex, and have evolutionary precursors.
Something like 'Junk DNA' is one of the best examples of exactly how powerful evolution, as a completely passive process, is. For a start, the majority of intron regions (the 'junk') has some function in the regulation of the coding regions, and the completely inactive sections of DNA provide the redundancy for mutations to be stable. But the key point is that, that DNA might not be doing anything, but if it's not deleterious to the organism, it won't be selected against, and will therefore remain in the organism. It will have served some purpose at some point in the organisms evolutionary history, but has since been made redundant. This is the beauty of evolution. Sometimes useless, or even negative things will happen to an organisms genetic make up simply because one phenotype has been selected for in one environment.
Did any creationist theories actually predict junk DNA, or dinosaur tissue inside fossils?
Also, wild examples of natural evolution may be 'unspectacular', but that does not make them any less important or definitive. Evolution is always going to look unspectacular in a snapshot as small as the human timeline. In addition, anyone who has worked as a microbiologist, as I have, will have seen selection leading to physical change actually happen in front of them. I often saw a completely antimicrobial sensitive population of a species of bacteria, after several generations in the presence of a selective antimicrobial presence, become a resistant population. The fact is, concepts of random mutation in the presence of a selective pressure, leading to inheritable physical change, is a repeatable, testable and proven process.
I agree that evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor does it try to. In fact, it allows for the presence of a Creator at the point of life’s origin. There are, however, scientific attempts to explain how life arose, none of which have as much evidence as the theory of evolution.
And I’m not sure that any aspect of evolutionary theory is religious, though it is an interesting take. You’re probably right, that many people will take it on face value as being ostensibly correct, and perhaps take a leap of faith to do so.
No issues with anything you have said above. I agree that there are evolutionary explanations for all the things in my list such as punk eek for gaps and stasis in the fossil record. But to a creationist this looks like an ad hoc explanation, which creation explains more naturally.
Anyway my only point above was to show that creationism does have a decent case to make in these areas but you would need to read about them on creationist sites to really know where I am coming from. For instance no creationist disputes micro-evolutionary change! I think you know your evolution but you might need to improve your understanding of modern creationist ideas. If you wanted to present a case for creationism you might look at how both sides explain these issues. I think creationists do make worthwhile points in all of the areas I mentioned.
With the religious aspect of evolution surely you must be aware of people like Dawkins making statements like evolution makes him an 'intellectually fulfilled Atheist' while roundly deriding and insulting anyone who has the temerity to think differently?
Anyway my only point above was to show that creationism does have a decent case to make in these areas but you would need to read about them on creationist sites to really know where I am coming from. For instance no creationist disputes micro-evolutionary change! I think you know your evolution but you might need to improve your understanding of modern creationist ideas. If you wanted to present a case for creationism you might look at how both sides explain these issues. I think creationists do make worthwhile points in all of the areas I mentioned.
With the religious aspect of evolution surely you must be aware of people like Dawkins making statements like evolution makes him an 'intellectually fulfilled Atheist' while roundly deriding and insulting anyone who has the temerity to think differently?
Djevv said:
To be honest, I don't have a completely rounded understanding of modern creationist theory, there are so many, from a variety of religions, and it's a bit hard to keep up. But I concede that I can't really argue against it without a complete understanding.
Again, to be honest, I would say that scientifically, there is no necessity for a creator, and attempts to incorporate one in to scientific theory suggest an egocentric view of the universe.
As for Dawkins, he is as much a shock jock as he is an evolutionary proponent. He makes a lot of insulting and unhelpful statements. He has a little bit of a persecution complex. I think he believes these impassioned statements are the best way to get his point across. Whilst his arguments are very precise, he can be a real jerk about it.
This is the problem with these discussions. Much of the 'evidence' that you cite below has been discussed and it isn't a matter of they both 'theories' can explain these, it is a matter of inaccurate interpretation of these points by creationists to shoehorn the theory into their preconceived conclusions.
Djevv said:Hard to introduce it to the science curriculum if it can't be critically analyzed I agree. Also there are lots of different types of creationism: young earth is the best known, but old earth creationism and Theistic Evolution and ID are also creationism.
If I was going to present it favorably I would focus on some of the things it has correctly predicted:
The general stasis of organisms in the fossil record and the lack of transitional forms which can be actually observed, as opposed to inferred - I assumed creationism would predict a single event. The appearance of all life simultaneously. Punctuated equilibrium makes perfect sense...ie. evolutionary stasis in stable environments with punctuated events on the fringes and after environmental change. A classic example of hypothesis development in response to new evidence. Not a weakness of science, a strength.
That many rocks can be explained by a catastrophic origin eg Mt St Helens sediments - This isn't an either/or situation. It isn't a 19th century geological debate!Some rocks do have origins in catastrophic events, others are due to slow, gradual events. Independent radiometric dating methods agree on this. How is creationism a better explanation of rocks billions of years old?
The Cambrian explosion - Just so we're clear, this 'explosion' took 40 million years. Not exactly overnight. The basic genetics of complex body plans are deeply rooted evolutionarily. If those initial developmental pathways appeared during this time, it is not surprising to see a huge diversity in body plans. It is also a problem that complex animal fossil have subsequently been found in earlier, Ediacaran, strata.
The discovery of functional 'junk DNA' - Why is this more consistent with creationism? I'd expect natural selection to co-opt certain 'junk DNA' sequences into useful functions. It doesn't explain the fact that the vast majority of junk DNA is exactly that. Why do you think humans have a non-functional GULO gene that prevents us from synthesising vitamin C? Does that have some sort of function? Why do humans and other primates share inactive viral sequences at the same positions in our DNA, when we know the mechanism that inserts these sequences is essentially random? Is creationism or common descent a better explanation?
Dinosaur tissue inside fossils - This is classic creationism. Ignore the rest of the evidence and jump on a new finding that may support your preconceived position. Why not look at the entirety of the evidence and draw the most likely conclusion? This finding, although fascinating, is still controversial. It will be interesting to see what we learn about fossilisation from from it.
The complexity of molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum and the idea of specified and irreducible complexity This has been dealt with at length and I am surprised you raise it here. IR was the only real prediction of ID and it has been thoroughly discredited by others.
That experiments which attempt to induce evolutionary change have had only very minor successes. In fact they have had very interesting findings - the Lenski experiments have changed a fundamental, defining metabolic characteristic of the E. coli population in his experiments. The natural experiments with antibiotics in our culture have had striking (and worrying) effects. All of this in very short spaces of time from an evolutionary perspective. As a geologist, I know you understand the difference between the timescales that have produced the diversity of life on this planet and the experiments that I have just mentioned?
Observations of natural selection in action in the wild are unspectacular. - Not quite sure what you mean by this, but many adaptations, the products of natural selection, are anything but unspectacular.
The issue of how mutation and natural selection actually designed say something like a wing is very hard to envisage. No known natural process produces designs in any other area of science. - Read up on the creative power of natural selection. This is a fundamental aspect of evolutionary theory, is intrinsically creative and can lead to the evolution of remarkably complex adaptations through building upon successes.
Lack of any reasonable theory on the origin of life, which is often taught alongside evolution. - Baby out with the bath water? There are plenty of interesting hypotheses on the origins of life, but they are separate from the processes that drive evolution.
Hugely controversial list I know, but if you want to know why a percentage of the population is skeptical about evolution the answer will be somewhere in this list. They are skeptical because they believe something a priori that some seem to see threatened by the implications of evolutionary theories and therefore cling to disproven explanations to try to reconcile their beliefs. Whatever happened to blind faith?
I also think 'science' needs to realize that evolution does make 'religious' statements about origins(I count metaphysical naturalism as religion) perhaps it needs to explicitly distance it's self from religion, but I don't know how. - Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet and the mechanisms that drive that diversification, no more, no less. If you want to draw religious conclusions from it, you wouldn't be alone, but the science sticks to the data and doesn't make claims outside of that.
Coburgtiger said:
I think he is just looking for an adult conversation about these issues and like many aging men has decided to go all Twisted Sister and just call a spade a spade. It must be frustrating for someone who has been involved in this scientific discipline to see that a huge percentage of the population of the wealthiest nation on Earth don't believe in evolution. I agree, that it might not be the most effective method and my wife took an immediate dislike to his tone, but I admire his arguments and base my judgements on that.
It's a bit patronising to call creationist arguments not an 'adult conversation'. Whilst I agree with Dawkins arguments, this belligerent insulting the opposition into submission rarely wins any fans. I understand the difficulty with preaching some scientific ideas to some parts of the public without the scientific background, but is he trying to show everyone how smart he is, or is he trying to expose the elegance of the theory?
Coburgtiger said:
I agree and that is just my interpretation of his approach (it was a bit tongue in cheek
). I think the accusations of him being 'shrill' or insulting are a little overblown. His books DO expose the elegance of the theory IMO and were very influential in my early education.
Coburgtiger said:
I don't think he's trying to show everyone how smart he is. He relies on intellect and gets frustrated with those who claim to do the same, but who ultimately prioritise faith. Because of this I don't think he's a particularly good communicator.
